Increased Hemoglobin/hematocrit In Dogs

pollution and cancer



Les médias nous rapportent de partout de cas de cancers chez young people with good habits and so far perfectly healthy. This disease places a heavy burden well on the backs of our families and society as a whole.

Today, statistics indicate that two men in the United States will probably have a cancer in his life, and one man in four will die. For women, one woman in three will have cancer, and one in five will die. Year after year these numbers increase. Between 1973 and 1999, "likely" that a child has cancer increased 26%, and it continues to increase, according to the American Cancer Society (ACS).

While our government? It provides funding for research cancer that are discovered new treatments. Certainly the people already suffering need new drugs and new treatments. But more funding and effort should go into the causes and prevention. Although it is virtually impossible to trace the cause of cancer of one person, several known carcinogens have been identified.

Some cancers are linked hereditary, but environmental factors cause 75% to 80% of cancers and deaths in the U.S. according to the ACS. This leads directly to the links between our polluted environment and increased cancer, especially in children and young adults.

By giving more emphasis on job creation rather than security, we have allowed industries to dump toxins into the air and water, sometimes deliberately. We have built nuclear power plants near large cities where they emit radiation in air and discharge of radioactive tritium into the rivers. We have spread millions of pounds of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers on our land where they gather into our groundwater and streams. Most of our crops are sprayed with toxic chemicals. The meat we eat is fattened with growth hormones and until recently, antibiotics. (In Quebec, the opposite is true, but the result is the same!).

cows receive hormones to increase milk production, thus changing the composition of the milk we drink. We consume prescription drugs entering our drinking water sources and can not be filtered. Many of the chemicals in our cleaning products, soaps and cosmetics are toxic, some of which are linked to cancer. We épandons of carcinogenic pesticides in and around our homes and schools. Most of our beverages are bottled in plastic containers containing BPA, which is also toxic. By burning our waste, we relax in the air we breathe dioxins, furans and heavy metals, all known to be carcinogenic.

In Tennessee, we incinerate radioactive waste, releasing radiation into the air, our soil, water and our food. In the 1970s, laws to protect air quality and water were put in place, but since that time, laws that protect us have been weakened and is now under fire policy.

Can be surprised that over 1.5 million citizens of the United States are diagnosed with cancer every year, and that each year more than half a million of our loved ones die? (GBA)

For decades, many doctors have warned of health hazards of environmental pollution on our health: Dr. John W. Gofman (Poisoned Power), Dr. Samuel S. Epstein (Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War ", the Dr. Helen Caldicott (Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer), the Dr. Doris J. Rapp (Our Toxic World). There are no easy solutions, but as a society and as individuals we must act to protect our health and especially the health of our children.

The author, Kathleen Ferris, co-founder of Citizens to End Nuclear Dumping in Tennessee. She is a resident of Murfreesboro.

link for the site of endite: http://www.citizenstoendit.org/ Photo: citizenstoendit.org

"rats Cancer Traced to Our Environmental Impact

In Her article," Cancer: We pray against all odds''Feb. 4, Susan Estrich tells The heartbreaking story, Repeated Throughout The Country, about Seemingly healthy and clean-living people getting cancer and dying young. As Ms. Estrich notes, Cancer Victims and Their Families Suffer Terribly. This blight upon o society takes an enormous toll, both in human suffering and in medical costs.

Today, one in two men in the U.S. are likely to get cancer during their lifetimes, and one in four will die. For women, the odds are one in three, with one in five dying. Year by year the numbers grow. Between 1973 and 1999, children's chances of getting cancer increased by 26 percent, and they are still rising. (American Cancer Society).

So what is our government doing about this problem? Pouring money into cancer research; seeking new cures. Certainly cures are needed for the people already affected. But more money and attention need to be given to cause and prevention. Though it is almost impossible to trace the cause of a single person's cancer, many known carcinogens have already been identified.

Some cancers have a hereditary link, but environmental factors account for 75-80 percent of cancer cases and deaths in the U.S. (ACS). This fact points to the connection between our polluted environment and the increase we see in cancers, especially among children and young adults.

Putting jobs over safety, we have allowed industries to pour toxins into our air and water, some deliberately dumped. We have built nuclear reactors near large cities, where they routinely emit radiation into air and spill radioactive tritium into rivers. We have dumped millions of pounds of weed killers, pesticides and fertilizers onto our soil, where they find their way into our groundwater and streams. Most of our crops are sprayed with toxic chemicals. The meat we consume is pumped with growth hormones and, until recently, antibiotics.

Cows are given hormones to increase milk production, thereby changing the composition of the milk we drink. We use prescription drugs, which get into our water sources and cannot be filtered out. Many of the chemicals in our cleaning products, soaps and cosmetics are toxic, some cancer-causing. We spray carcinogenic pesticides in and around our homes and schools. Most of our beverages are packaged in plastic containers, which contain BPA, also toxic. By incinerating waste, we release dioxins, furans and heavy metals, known carcinogens, into the air we breathe.

Here in Tennessee, we incinerate radioactive waste, releasing radiation into our air, soil, water and food supplies. In the '70s, clean air and water acts were enacted, but since that time, protective laws have been eroded and are now under political attack.

Is it any wonder that annually over 1.5 million Americans discover they have cancer, and that each year we lose over half a million of our loved ones to this dreaded disease? (ACS).

For decades, many medical doctors have warned us of the dangers to our health from our polluted environment: Dr. John W. Gofman (Poisoned Power), Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, (Cancer-Gate: How To Win the Losing Cancer War), Dr. Helen Caldicott, (Nuclear Power is Not the Answer), Dr. Doris J. Rapp, (Our Toxic World). There are no easy answers, but as a society and as individuals, we need to act to protect our health and especially the health of our children."

Kathleen Ferris is co-founder of Citizens to End Nuclear Dumping in Tennessee. She lives in Murfreesboro.

The link to the site of ENDIT: http://www.citizenstoendit.org/

Link for above article: http://www.citizen-times.com/article/DN/20110214/OPINION03/102140351/0/COLUMNIST0401/Cancer-rates-traced-our-environmental-impact?odyssey=nav signs anti-shale this winter. A crust on the snow, a beautiful sunny day and not much wind allowed me to hold myself back, plus a red rag. The red flag is an idea from our friends in Montreal who thought a simple and respectful of the laws on nuisance for anyone to show his support for the movement s'opposition shale gas.

Bad weather and a lot of horseplay squirrel got the Better of my anti-shale signs this winter. But a hard snow surface, a nice sunny "day with very little wind all WAS I Needed to put my signs back up.

Plus, our friends from Montreal Thought of a nice simple way For Those Who Want to Show Their Support to the anti-gas shale movement while Respecting Municipal by-laws: just hang a red rag from your window or balcony! No Sooner Said Than Done!

Can Genital Warts Be On Stomache

Shale gas - we print them!

Photo: Mark Mattson

Some fish in the Hudson River in upstate New York have developed resistance to several toxic pollutants into the rivers. Instead of getting sick of having ingested dioxin-like compounds and polychlorinated biphenyls some, Atlantic tomcod defends itself by accumulating these poisons in the fat, according to a new study.
But if it helps this species of fish shoals to survive, it could endanger the species that feed on them, according to Isaac Wirgin Institute of Environmental Medicine New York University School of Medicine in Tuxedo. Each mouthful of tomcod ingested by a predator contains a powerful dose of toxic chemicals that migrate into the food chain, possibly in species that could result in our plates. From 1947 to 1976, two plants of General elecric on the banks of the Hudson River PCBs were generated that had several purposes, including insulating fluids in electrical transformers. For years, the levels of PCBs and dioxins in the livers of tomcod have increased to such an extent that they were the highest in nature. M. Wirgin and collèques wrote online 17 February 2011 in the journal Science. Because these fish do not detoxify their PCBs, according Wirgin, it was a surprise that this contamination accumulated fish without poisoning. His team now reports that tomcod protects itself with a mutation of a single gene. This gene enables the production of a protein that appears to address the toxicity of pollutants.

All vertebrates contain molecules that attach to their cells Dioxins and similar compounds. Indeed, these proteins called aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) are also called the dioxin receptor. Once these poisons are in a cell, each molecule with a receptor can unite and together they cling to a third. This trio can then dock with certain segments of DNA in the cell nouyeau to turn on genes that are stocking the animal receptor. The tomcod

actually has two types of AHR, AHR-2 which clings particularly pollutants such as dioxin. But a variant of the AHR-2 natural, the result of a mutation, is more difficult to focus according to the findings of the team Wirgin. It takes 5 times more pollutants for a link with the AHR-2 treaty. In relatively less polluted local rivers to dioxins and PCBs, 95% carry the tomcod AHR-2 in its conventional form only. But in charge of the Hudson River PCBs, Wirgin team found that 99% had tomcod AHR protein-2 in its variant that binds with difficulty.

mutated receptors appear to have evolved long ago and have spread widely in the population. But in the Hudson River, fish with the gene that causes the mutant receptor are many, while others have not died, says Wirgin.

The adaptations to resist poisons often exist in molecular biology by John Stegeman toxicologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. This process explains why some pesticides have a greater impact on target species and that is why some microbes become resistant to antibiotics.

Mr. Stegeman has written extensively on resistance to toxic PCBs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in another coastal species, the kill: "But the defense mechanism of killifish is not yet known, despite our hard work to find out. "he said.

Knowing the genetic mechanisms at the source of the chemical resistance can help predict the emergence of resistance in the making, he says, and can help discover ways to take advantage of the mechanism of resistance, even understand how a chemical is toxic. " Mechanisms of genetic resistance to chemicals in wildlife are known in some invertebrates, such as certain insects. Stegeman according to his knowledge, this discovery in a tomcod is a first for a vertebrate.


Photo: Rob Yasinsac

"Packing away the poison
Genetic mutation allows Hudson River fish to adapt to PCBs, dioxins

Some fish in New York’s Hudson River have become resistant to several of the waterway’s more toxic pollutants. Instead of getting sick from dioxins and related compounds including some polychlorinated biphenyls, Atlantic tomcod harmlessly store these poisons in fat, a new study finds.

But what’s good for this bottom-dwelling species could be bad for those feeding on it, says Isaac Wirgin of the New York University School of Medicine’s Institute of Environmental Medicine in Tuxedo. Each bite of tomcod that a predator takes, he explains, will move a potent dose of toxic chemicals up the food chain — eventually into species that could end up on home dinner tables.

From 1947 to 1976, two General Electric manufacturing plants along the Hudson River produced PCBs for a range of uses, including as insulating fluids in electrical transformers. Over the years, PCB and dioxin levels in the livers of the Hudson’s tomcod rose to become “among the highest known in nature,” Wirgin and his colleagues note online February 17 (2011)in Science. Because these fish don’t detoxify PCBs, Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports that the tomcod’s protection traces to a single mutation in one gene. The gene is responsible for producing a protein needed to unleash the pollutants’ toxicity. All vertebrates contain molecules in their cells that will bind to dioxins and related compounds. Indeed, these proteins — aryl hydrocarbon receptors, or AHRs — are often referred to as dioxin receptors. Once these poisons diffuse into an exposed cell, each molecule can mate with a receptor and together they eventually pick up a third molecule. This trio can then dock with select segments of DNA in the cell’s nucleus to inappropriately turn on genes that can poison the host animal.
The tomcod actually has two types of AHRs, with AHR-2 offering the most effective binding to dioxin-like pollutants. But one naturally occurring AHR-2 variant, the result of a gene mutation, proves a very poor mate, Wirgin’s team has found. It takes five times more of the pollutants to get substantial binding than is needed with the conventional AHR-2.

In local rivers relatively free of dioxins and PCBs, 95 percent of tomcod possess AHR-2 only in the conventional form. But in the PCB-rich Hudson, Wirgin’s group finds, the only kind of AHR-2 protein in 99 percent of tomcod is the poorly binding variant.

The mutant receptor appears to have evolved long ago and to be widely dispersed. But in the Hudson, fish with the gene to make the mutant receptor have thrived, while those without it have died out, Wirgin notes.

Adaptation to resist poisons occurs throughout biology, observes molecular toxicologist John Stegeman of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. This process explains why some pesticides no longer kill their targets and why some microbes become immune to antibiotics.

Stegeman has been chronicling resistance to toxic PCBs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in another coastal species, a killifish. “But the mechanism in the killifish has not been uncovered, despite a long effort to determine it,” he says.

Knowing the genetic underpinnings for chemical resistance can help predict the likelihood of that resistance developing, he explains, and can point to “how one might exploit resistance — even understand why chemicals are toxic.” Genetic mechanisms for chemical resistance in wild species are invertebrates Known For Some, Such as bugs. Stegeman says, to His Knowledge, this tomcod Finding Is the first in a vertebrate. "

Excerpts from Article Written by Janet Raloff published in ScienceNews here:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/69976 / title / Packing_away_the_poison



Photo: dec.ny.gov

Why Does My Expensive Computer Lag

Pollution - fish adapt to PCBs and dioxins




Photo: thelinknewspaper.ca
Submission to: BAPE environment (BAPE) SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRY OF SHALE GAS TO QUEBEC

Presented by: Odette Larin Larin

Roland November 2010 Mr. President and Madam
the commissioners

My husband and I are retired since December 2006. We live in the municipality of Saint-Louis, in the district of Richelieu, 1979. We have also experienced our childhood and adolescence, to be born me and my husband happened to be the age of two years. The only time in our life that is held outside of St. Louis was from 1969 to 1979, during which time we lived in Longueuil and where our children were born. Then we had to choose between the eventful life to the city or the peace and tranquility in the countryside. To give our children and ourselves the quiet, clean air and tranquility as we considered necessary, we have chosen to establish definitively in St. Louis, our little paradise.

In the summer of 2007, an operating company of Gas Branch came to drill a well. in search of natural gas. She settled on a vacant lot in the heart of the city limits, 250 feet (76 meters) from our property, without any consultation or prior information. It's wanting to know more and after several steps we have managed to get some information from a representative of the Ministry of Natural Resources, he told us the names of the companies involved, they held all the necessary permits and that we did not have to worry, that there was no danger. It was later learned at the last meeting of the Association of Information gas. that the company that owns the "claim" needed to quickly find a white area in land so that the drill back to Alberta and to avoid delays in obtaining permission the CPTAQ. if the work had been done in agricultural areas. Thus, for some material concerns, the company had no qualms about
settle in the center of our little village.

Only when the installation work was completed as the representative of this company is coming here to inform us and chat with us by explaining that once completed, they would not return. They drilled for 22 days, night and day.

Then, in summer 2008. partner, an American company came and again when the facilities were completed, the representative met us, mentioning that the same kind of work in 2007 would be made and then it would be finished. The work took 28 days, 24 hours 24. And finally, in fall 2008, the company has made partner hydraulic fracturing, from October to January 2009, in the middle of the village. We lived for 93 days, all operations and maneuvers related to hydraulic fracturing, almost always 24 hours 24. We had two explosions in the middle of the night with an especially traumatic that rattled the windows of our house. We have suffered harm as a result lighting, operation of generators, the comings and goings of machinery and constant traffic of tractor-trailer. For six days, we were heavily intoxicated by the fumes of carbon monoxide from diesel engines and heavy machinery that is very large abnormal return in the village in a farming community. The noise was unbearable these behemoths. The company also built three pools including a greater recovery for water fracturing, always in the center of the village. According to recent studies, these waters contain gases and other volatile products harmful to health.

To support these claims, we join in Annex 1 and two aerial photographs in Appendix 2, an amateur video that we tour. Aerial photographs were taken by the gas company in October 2008. Just before the fracturing
work while much of the necessary machinery was already in place to work. Our home is surrounded on the photos. The DVD was filmed by us at various times between October and December 2008 and for the last part of the film in the summer of 2009. This DVD shows some machinery used to inject high pressure water into the well. It also heard the noise and see the pollution emitted by diesel engines
during fracturing. Some shots show the flame coming out of the flare and the lights used to illuminate the site during the evening and night. It shows also the service rig for fracturing, a little smaller than the drill used to make the vertical and horizontal drilling.

On the second day of hearings of the BAPE, industry Gas Branch said the fracturing operations do not emit more than 40 decibels and that if some work disturbing, mitigation measures could be taken. The industry, which claims to be responsible citizens, may well say what she wants. But to see the size of these behemoths, the size of diesel engines that power them and the number of such machines, what concrete steps can they apply to make their operations acceptable when we know they need a couple of these machines?

Another aspect is to deepen the royalties, or rather leave granted to royalties Gas Branch. If we understand the principle, the government would leave charges during the first 5 years of operation. We have included in Appendix 3 a copy of a document published by Wellington West Capital Market. July 22. 2008. demonstrating that the primary use will be primarily during the first 3 years. How can it be said that there will be money for Quebec if the wells are almost dry after 5 years?

The Mining Act, dating from the late 19th century, allows companies to perform tasks which are provided to at least 100 meters from residences. We are in the twenty-first century and there is no need to be an expert to say that the machinery and processes used today do not compare to those used at the beginning of last century. For all the reasons mentioned above. Here are our suggestions that could possibly come to the social acceptability and so sought after by others.

First, we suggest that it is strictly prohibited drilling within the limits of any urban area. For this purpose, and to avoid further damage, we suggest that forcing the companies involved to abandon and condemn e boreholes dug in the village of St. Louis.

Second, we suggest that forbids companies to drill within a mile from any residence, having regard to air pollution, noise and light generated during exploration operations.

Finally, even if the BAPE is not the appropriate forum for this request rary, we also ask that a moratorium be declared to the authorities concerned have time and give themselves the means to assess the merits exploration and exploitation of shale gas What do we bequeath to our children and our grandchildren? A basement emptied Resources it still contains? A polluted environment? Or do we want them to leave some wealth so they can also have a chance to prosper.

In conclusion, although we asked about what will result from the limited mandate that was granted even though we have strong doubts about the impact that your recommendations will have on our decision, although we have long hesitated before going our position. We hope that this democratic process is not an empty word and that our intervention will just tip the balance.


Photo: neb-one.gc.ca